, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 283–300 | Cite as

Retooling Techno-Moral Scenarios. A Revisited Technique for Exploring Alternative Regimes of Responsibility for Human Enhancement

  • Simone ArnaldiEmail author
Original Paper


The techno-moral scenarios (TMS) approach has been developed to explore the interplay between technology, society and morality. Focused on new and emerging sciences and technologies, techno-moral scenarios can be used to inform and enhance public deliberation on the desirability of socio-technical trajectories. The article presents an attempt to hybridise this scenario tool, complementing the focus on ethics with an explicit acknowledgement of the multiple meanings of responsibility and of the plurality of its regimes, i.e. the institutional arrangements presiding over the assumption and assignment of responsibilities. We call this integrated technique ‘rTMS’ to stress the continuity with the original technique and, at the same time, to highlight the additional element we aim to develop: responsibility. The article describes this approach and illustrates a loosely standardised procedure that can be used to organise and conduct public engagement workshops based on rTMS.


Human enhancement Techno-moral scenarios Responsibility Ethics Public engagement 



The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. I wish to thank the participants in the mutual learning workshop on “Responsibility and human enhancement” held in Padova, Italy, on May 22, 2017, for their precious comments and suggestions on the first draft of this article. In particular, we would like to express our gratitude to Tsjalling Swierstra who acted as the discussant of this paper during the workshop. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the funding from the Independent Social Research Foundation (ISRF), Flexible Grants for Small Research Groups program, which made it possible to conduct this research as part of the project “Responsibility and Human Enhancement. Concepts, implications and assessments”.


  1. 1.
    Sauter A, Gerlinger K (2014) The pharmacologically improved human: performance-enhancing substances as a social Challenge BoD - Books on Demand, NorderstedtGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kass LR (2003) Ageless bodies, happy souls: biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection. The New Atlantis 1:9–28Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sandel MJ (2009) The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia T, Sandler R (2008) Enhancing justice? NanoEthics 2:277–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McVeigh J, Evans-Brown M, Bellis MA (2012) Human enhancement drugs and the pursuit of perfection. Adicciones 24:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fukuyama F (2003) Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Profile Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris J (2011) Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Savulescu J, Sandberg A, Kahane G (2014) Well-being and enhancement. In: Savulescu J, Meulen RHJ ter, Kahane G (eds) Enhancing human capacities. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, p 1–18Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bostrom N, Roache R (2011) Smart policy: cognitive enhancement in the public interest. In: Savulescu J, Meulen RHJ ter, Kahane G (eds) Enhancing human capacities. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, p 138–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meacham D (2015) The subject of enhancement: augmented capacities, extended cognition, and delicate ecologies of the mind. The New Bioethics 21:5–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boenink M, Swierstra T, Stemerding D (2010) Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 4.
  12. 12.
    Swierstra T, Stemerding D, Boenink M (2009) Exploring techno-moral change: the case of the ObesityPill. In: Sollie P, Düwell M (eds) Evaluating new technologies. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 119–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Swierstra T (2015) Identifying the normative challenges posed by technology’s ‘soft’ impacts. Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 9.
  14. 14.
    Stemerding D (2015) iGEM as laboratory in responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2:140–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Douglas CM, Stemerding D (2014) Challenges for the European governance of synthetic biology for human health. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10:6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible Innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, pp 51–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wack P (1985) Scenarios: shooting the rapids. Harv Bus Rev:139–150Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amer M, Daim TU, Jetter A (2013) A review of scenario planning. Futures 46:23–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roubelat F (2000) Scenario planning as a networking process. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 65:99–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Masini EB, Vasquez JM (2000) Scenarios as seen from a human and social perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 65:49–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barbieri Masini E (1993) Why futures studies? Grey Seal, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palm E, Hansson SO (2006) The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73:543–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Est R van, Rerimassie V, Keulen I van, et al (2014) Intimate technology: the battle for our body and behaviour. Rathenau Institute, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luhmann N (2005) Risk: a sociological theory. Aldine Transaction, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:31–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boenink M (2010) Imagining the future: how vignettes and scenarios might improve ethical reflection on synthetic biology for health purposes. In: Szebik I. (ed) Ethics and clinical applications of synthetic biology: an interdisciplinary dialogue. SYBHEL project, Bilbao, p 55–64Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arnaldi S, Gorgoni G (2016) Turning the tide or surfing the wave? Responsible research and innovation, fundamental rights and neoliberal virtues. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 12:6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gorgoni G (2018) Responsible research and innovation and the governance of human enhancement. NanoEthics 12(3). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vincent NA (2011) A structured taxonomy of responsibility concepts. In: Vincent NA, van de Poel I, van den Hoven J (eds) Moral responsibility. Springer, Dordrecht, p 15–35Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hart HLA (2008) Punishment and responsibility: essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davis M (2012) “Ain’t no one here but us social forces”: constructing the professional responsibility of engineers. Sci Eng Ethics 18:13–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van de Poel I, Nihlén Fahlquist J, Doorn N, Zwart S, Royakkers L (2012) The problem of many hands: climate change as an example. Sci Eng Ethics 18:49–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Forsberg E-M, Quaglio G, O’Kane H et al (2015) Assessment of science and technologies: advising for and with responsibility. Technol Soc 42:21–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shamir R (2008) The age of responsibilization: on market-embedded morality. Econ Soc 37:1–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Arnaldi S, Bianchi L (2016) Responsibility in science and technology. Elements of a social theory. Springer VS, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Finch J (1987) The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 21:105–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Alexander CS, Becker HJ (1978) The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly 42:93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilks T (2004) The use of vignettes in qualitative research into social work values. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice 3:78–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hughes R, Huby M (2004) The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Soc Work Soc Sci Rev 11:36–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parsons T (1991) The social system. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Madsen S, Nielsen L (2010) Exploring persona-scenarios - using storytelling to create design ideas. In: Katre D, Orngreen R, Yammiyavar P, Clemmensen T (eds) Human work interaction design: usability in social, cultural and organizational contexts. Springer, Berlin, pp 57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Milne S (2009) Scenarios and personas: towards a methodology for portraying the carbon intensity of UK lifestyles to 2030, Scott Milne, RESOLVE working paper 06–09. University of SurreyGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fourtané S (2018) Neuralink: how the human brain will download directly from a computer. Accessed 29 Sep 2018
  47. 47.
    Regalado A (2017) With Neuralink, Elon Musk promises human-to-human telepathy. Don’t believe it. Accessed 29 Sep 2018
  48. 48.
    Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political and Social SciencesUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations